Thread 513000689

where did they go wrong? what would a confederate victory even look like?

The only way the South wins the civil war is if they drag it out so long that it turns into an Afghanistan situation where the Union eventually just gives up and lets them win.

>>513000689 (OP)
Niggers sent back cause those faggot Jews.

>>513000689 (OP)
they should have never seceded and instead taken over politically gradually by exploiting the dumbass masses like the republicans did when all the cousin-fuckers aside from Strom left the dems.

>>513000689 (OP)
You’d have to stop Irish immigration and even then it’s a slim chance.
The tide had turned against slavery a generation earlier. The war just made it clear.
Not saying I agree with it but there it is.

>>513000689 (OP)
They could have in the 1850s, during the Kansas-Nebraska War, but the state governments chose to wait. Hmmm

>>513000689 (OP)
No, industrial warfare (which is everything after say the invention of the railroad and certainly the invention of the steamship and machine gun) is / was won by industrial capacity.
The northern states were outproducing the southern states by something like 5 to 1 at the beginning of the war and that number go worse as the south's paltry industry was destroyed by union blockades and raids.
There is no way for the CSA to win that war. Their only hope was for the USA to simply vote against the war. Instead they re-elected Lincoln. Theoretically GB could have intervened and potentially inflicted enough damage to the US's war enthusiasm to knock them out but in that scenario the CSA becomes a british puppet. The fact that Britain had already outlawed slavery and was making more than enough profit off their holdings in India and Africa meant that was a fool's hope as well.
>>513001080
They had tried and failed to reach a political solution. The election of a Republican president was seen as the last straw but really the fact the union kept adding more states from the west who were all anti-slavery (because the majority of the settles came from the more populous and wealthier northern states) ensured the southern states would continue to loose elections
>>513001203
Industrialization had already begun and eventually the USA would have re-taken the land...or I guess the CSA could have fused with Mexico and presented somewhat of a united front against the union but the disparity in industrial power was going to become apparent eventually. The south (and mexico for that matter) relied entirely too much on agriculture to win a war against an industrialized power.

They could have taken DC in the first few months of the war, but they stopped at the Potomac because Gen Lee said he didn't want to be the aggressor.

See what taking the high road gets you??

The Civil War was a boiling over of Kansas-Nebraska, but had the other states moved on DC sooner, before the Republicucks gained power? Yeah, they would have won. The north would be canada, and germans would be speaking virginian.

>>513000689 (OP)
The South lost because Lincoln was a war criminal.

>>513001374
The fall of the capital would not have knocked the union out of the war. When the capital was attacked during the war of 1812 it strengthened the resolve of the federalists.
I agree that it was feasible for the CSA to capture and briefly hold DC during the first year of the war but it would not have helped their lost cause. In fact it would have likely led to a quicker capitulation as that army would have inevitably been shattered and forced to retreat in defeat similar to what happened in the aftermath from the Gettysburg campaign.
>>513001576
The south lost because they lacked population and industrial capacity to win a war against the union. As far as "war criminal" more POW were put to the sword by the confederates than by the union but neither side was perfect in that regard.

>>513001678
If they had destroyed the army of the potomac and occupied DC making it a stronghold, it would have taken allowed GB and other European countries the push to support the CSA and legitimized them as an independent country and recognized on a world scale, and trade would have immediately supported the agarian CSA, since European countries already had plenty of industrialization happening and factories, but needed raw materials from the south.

>>513000689 (OP)
As soon as they left, they'd have been taken by Mexico.

>>513002203
Great Britain had outlawed the slave trade like 20 years prior. Taking dc would not have legitimized anything.

>>513002203
>>513002330
Although you do raise an interesting point in the second half of your post.
Such is the vicissitudes of history

>>513002203
This relies on two things
First that GB even wanted to support the CSA. Britain profited from cheap cotton sure but they already had a surplus of cotton from their colonies in Egypt and India. They were the most abolitionist power on earth and would never has risked their own men in a war over the CSA
Second you're assuming European powers could not only arm but also man a war against the union. Even at the outbreak of the war the United States (almost entirely the union states) was the second largest industrial power on earth. Britain could in theory out produce them but in terms of manpower, as I mentioned above, there was no way british men would land in Virginia and fight in this war nor was the empire too keen to arm their colonies (which wouldn't happen until the existential threat of the world wars.)
So you would need other european powers to also ally with Britain and the CSA in order to take down the Union. France was busy in Mexico and Germany was still in the process of uniting under the prussians.
The industrial power you're alluding to simply doesn't exist in the capacity needed to defeat the union. The war was a lost cause from the start there is no way for it to end in victory. The only possible resolution that kept the CSA intact was a union vote against the war and against Lincoln in 63 however by that time the union had already effectively won the war with the blockades and the gettysburg campaign so the public re-elected Lincoln and sealed the confederate fate (Note even if the union voted against the war in 63 the CSA was still doomed to become either a british puppet state, a partner in a strange franco-mexican empire, or simply re-absorbed into the union after they inevitably abolished slavery.

>>513000689 (OP)
Literally all they had to do was vote to secede, not attack anyone or retaliate any baits, and they'd still exist to this day.

Hell, Nazis would likely still exist if Hitler never invaded Poland.

Japan would own most of Asia if they didn't attack Hawaii.

The examples are endless.

>>513002330
>Great Britain had outlawed the slave trade like 20 years prior
Slavery was on the way out in the south also, as a steam powered and later diesel powered farm equipment could do the work of hundreds of slaves.

Technology defeated slavery.

Same as A.I. will defeat office jobs.

>>513002625
>First that GB even wanted to support the CSA.
They did in reality.

They would have even more so if CSA had won or showed they could win, then GB would have even lent military support and blockades on the north.

GB hated the USA still in the mid 1800s.